'Lawyer X' marks a sticky
spot in criminal justice system

Crime reporter, The Age

The suspect in the police interview room decides he is in
desperate need of a lawyer but the trouble is he doesn't know who to
call - that is until the kindly detective provides him with a number
where he will get "good advice."

The suspect rings and explains his dilemma and the world-weary
voice at the other end says, "Just tell the detectives the truth and
it will all work out for the best."

Later the overworked legal aid solicitor at court can't believe
that any lawyer would have told a client to confess rather than
offer the traditional "no comment" response.

And he is right. The phone number the suspect was given was
another extension in the police building and the advice he received
was from a sergeant well-versed in matters of trickery.

In the criminal justice system everyone is supposed to have a
defined role. Police are there to lawfully gather evidence,
prosecutors to prosecute, judges to judge and defence lawyers to
defend.

But the roles are not always what they seem.

Many years ago police learnt that a hitman had accepted a
contract to kill, but they did not know the target, time or
location. So a detective "loaded" him with a planted gun, which
resulted in a jail term.

It was a corrupt act that may have saved a life.

Defence lawyers are supposed to provide their clients with the
best advice and act in their interest within the law. They ask
questions but rarely the most important: "Did you do it?". For if
the answer is yes, the lawyer cannot knowingly construct a defence
on lies.

So such "privileged" conversations are often a little like a
dance with the devil, with defences based on the possible rather
than the likely or the obvious.

The good lawyers know how to remain professional and impersonal.
They deal with their clients in court, in a police station, in
prison and in an office. But there a few who get sucked into the
underworld and start treating clients as friends - and in more than
one case - lovers.

A young lawyer was told by a senior partner the best way to stay
out of trouble was to remain totally professional in matters
involving trust accounts and attractive clients. "Don't knock off
either of 'em," was the advice.

Once they become part of the gang, lawyers lose their
professional protection and can be asked or pressured to provide
more than just legal advice.

Which brings us to "Lawyer X" - a legal figure who ended up a
registered informer for the Victoria Police.

The Herald Sun has published two page one reports on the
lawyer and were stopped from publishing a third after police took
out a Supreme Court injunction to ban any material that may identity
that person.

The trouble with this sort of thing is that when the identity of
someone such as Lawyer X is hidden, the inevitable guessing game
begins - and two legal identities who are not the subject of the
story now fear they could be wrongly suspected of being informers.

Certainly police say the safety of Lawyer X is now a major
concern, while the media argue that exploring the story is of public
interest. In the end the Supreme Court will make a decision on the
argument, possibly as early as Thursday.

So what do we know, or more importantly, what can we say?

A Melbourne lawyer feels trapped, having made the mistake of
treating clients as friends. The lawyer believes those friends are
exerting pressure to join in criminal conspiracies.

Detectives persuade the lawyer to become a secret source of
intelligence.

The lawyer continues to represent clients while talking to
police, although as yet there is no suggestion the lawyer sabotaged
defences or handed over privileged information.

Regardless, the lawyer is in an ethical minefield as the lines
between friends, enemies, clients and police blur.

Sources say the information was general and more about criminal
associations than "smoking gun" evidence.

The trouble began when high-ranking officers changed the ground
rules and pressured the lawyer to move from an anonymous source to
something more, which proved to be a disaster.

Now let's step back a moment. Some think defence lawyers and
police are sworn enemies because they oppose each other in court,
when in fact many are actually friends.

Police will give lawyers' business cards to suspects while
lawyers will steer clients towards police with a reputation for
fairness.

And some lawyers talk out of school. A client in a privileged
meeting may mention that another crook had confessed to an unrelated
crime in a previous jailhouse conversation.

More than once such information has been passed over as a general
tip during after-court beers.

In one high-profile case an anonymous tip led police to recover a
firearm used in the crime. Some detectives believe the call was made
by someone within a well-known city legal firm.

So were police wrong to cultivate the lawyer? Certainly not.

If a priest turned up and said a serial paedophile admitted in
the confessional he was about to abduct a child, should the police
ignore the information? Of course not.

One policeman said using informers in criminal investigations is
equivalent to using manure in the garden.

You can get good results, just make sure you wash your hands when
it's all done.

In Canada the Police behave a little differently. Firstly, they
don't need to have the criminal call a number for "advice" from a
copy in another room.
In Ottawa
Corrupt Detective Peter Van Der Zander fabricates evidence to
protect criminals, that's right, fabricates evidence to NOT charge
the most violent of criminals as long as they are female and have
the right contacts who can "fix it".

Then there all the superior officers who go along with it and turn a
blind eye to criminal offences, and including, fabrication of
evidence
by rotten corrupt cop,
Det. Peter Van Der Zander.